Wayne Chizek initiated the meeting and developed the agenda based on input
from the group prior to the meeting. Wayne had also scheduled a meeting with
Bill Peterson, ISAC director, to discuss the possibility of establishing a new
affiliate group within the ISAC organization that would focus on the IS/IT/GIS
functions of county government.

1. Introductions and opening comments about the need for a county level
technology group and whether established organizations such as IGIC, GMIS or
existing ISAC affiliates could meet the groupís needs.

Jason: IGIC has been failing to provide a structure that fosters the
sharing of technology and sharing of common day-to-day experiences and
stories.

Dean: Had tried several times to get Ann Peton, former State GIS
Coordinator, to present at ISAC. He had also tried and been unsuccessful at
getting answers to specific GIS questions.

Ken: Thought that a county level group would be the best suited for
establishing GIS standards for sharing of data. Polk now has several cities
that are struggling with combining GIS data from two, or (in the case of West
Des Moines) even four counties.

Micah: Sees IGIC as dealing with more of an academic level of GIS. There is
a need to have a group that can act as a repository for more detailed
information.

Jim: An ISAC Technology Affiliate could help to even out the knowledge base
between the technological have/have-not counties. Counties who have succeeded
in establishing web sites, for example, could give advice to those trying to
establish web sites without the bias introduced from the vendor community.

Scott: ISAC can give the group immediate access to the state legislative
process. Feels that GMIS (Government Management Information Sciences, an
international group made up of State, County, and Local government agencies
and educational institutions) is functioning at a certain level to coordinate
city and county level GIS efforts.

Joyce: Joyce agreed with Jim about the larger counties who have been
involved in technology providing support to smaller counties and also looking
to each other for support.

Bob: Indicated that he had been involved with GMIS from itís beginning in
Iowa. Has been trying to get ISAC interested in a Technology affiliate for
many years. Noted that there had been a Technology group meeting at one of the
past ISAC conferences.

Ray: Agreed with Micah about IGIC having more of an academic slant. Noted
that Alan Jensen, the new State GIS Coordinator, has not had much time yet to
establish himself. Feels that there are rolls to fill for both IGIC and an
ISAC affiliate.

Wayne: ISAC would give the group an immediate legislative presence.

2. Determine Committee Structure.

Wayne Chizek Ė Chairperson

Jim Rice Ė Co-chair

Ray Willis Ė Secretary

3. Review current lists of County IT & GIS professionals.

Excel file developed from earlier efforts by several of the members
attached.

4. Discuss statewide organization alternatives. (Can one new affiliate
cover both IT and GIS or should we be looking at two new affiliates?)

General consensus that one new affiliate should be able to provide for both
since there is so much overlap between IS and GIS interests.

General discussion about the merits of ISAC, GMIS, IGIC and forming a new
independent state organization. All agreed that it would be too difficult to
start an independent group.

Bob noted that there is a current effort to establish a new ISAC affiliate
for county zoning officials.

General discussion and agreement that ISAC seems to provide the most
benefits to a new affiliate in terms of professional, full-time staff,
established structure for lobbying efforts and county government focus.

5. Discuss aspects of an ISAC Technology Affiliate.

A) Positive - A technology affiliate could bring first hand experiences and
knowledge into ongoing county level discussions by other affiliates on issues
like e-commerce.

C) What can we provide ISAC? Ė Technology affiliate would make ISAC more
inclusive of county functions since no one office in county government is
consistently responsible for IS/GIS functions; provide a body of knowledge on
technical IS issues when new legislation is being introduced; provide other
affiliates with sources of contact with IS technicians.

D) What can ISAC provide us? Ė ISAC would give IS/GIS technicians good
exposure to the political side of county business; a forum for sharing
practical GIS concepts, approaches, and solutions between both the technology
have and have-nots; potential for grant applications on joint county IS/GIS
projects; potential savings from bulk purchases of hardware and software.

6. Discuss what this committee would like to accomplish from our meeting
with ISAC this afternoon.

A) To present our desire to becoming an ISAC affiliate.

B) To present our reasons for wanting to become an ISAC affiliate.

C) To obtain a thorough understanding of the process to become an ISAC
affiliate and the

required time line for such a process.

D) To individually and as a group, get a feel for ISACís feelings toward
a Technology Affiliate.

7. Next meeting date and Adjournment.

Tuesday, August 14th, 10:00 AM.

Location Ė Polk County Assessorís Office conference room in the

Polk County Administrative Building at 2nd & Court, Des
Moines.

Notes from meeting of afternoon of August 3rd, with Bill
Peterson, ISAC Executive Director and David Vestal, Deputy Director and
general council.

Introductions followed by Dave reviewing the current efforts by county
zoning officials to establish a County Zoning Affiliate (COZO). There was an
effort in the 80ís to establish a zoning affiliate which was voted down. The
newest effort started in earnest last January. They met with other ISAC
affiliates at the March conference to "lobby" for support from the
other affiliates. Dave noted that the Board of Supervisorís affiliate is a
key affiliate for support.

The process Dave described is:

Make presentation(s) to the ISAC Board of Directors. (Made up of 14
affiliates and the past ISAC president, the Iowa Director of NACO and also
members from the National Association of Counties, 19 voting members in
all. Note: The Supervisors have 3 voting members on the board.)

Lobbying of other affiliates for support. (Generally includes
presentations at ISAC conference.)

If Board agrees, the issue is put to a vote of the general membership in
attendance at either the March or November ISAC conference. (Everyone
registered for the conference that is in attendance gets to vote. Must
have a 2/3 majority for the issue to pass.)

ISAC Articles of Incorporation would be changed to reflect the new
affiliate. (Currently lists each affiliate and the total maximum number of
board members (19) on the ISAC Board of Directors.)

Bill pointed out that our group could take advantage of many of the
services provided by ISAC without becoming an affiliate. He told us that two
groups, Public Health Nurses and Environmental Health Officials, had been
established as affiliates and then asked to be removed. He told us that the
membership structure was established so that each county paid the same dues no
matter what itsí population size. This was a positive because no county had
more influence than another but was also a negative because the dues are a
significant budget burden for the smaller counties.

Bill and Dave gave us several suggestions about how to proceed if we wanted
to become an affiliate. They strongly suggested that we establish bylaws that
would be compatible with the current bylaws of other affiliates. The ISAC
Board meets 6 to 7 times a year, usually once a month from September through
March. We should put together a 45 minute to 1 hour presentation for one of
the board meetings and be prepared to give it more than once. They indicated
that there might be some resistance by affiliates made up of elected county
officials to vote in a new affiliate made up of non-elected county employees.
The perception being that having been elected and subject to being defeated in
the next election, they are more directly accountable to the citizens of their
county than non-elected county employees. Dave also pointed out that some
might feel that the legislative concerns of a technology group are already
represented by existing affiliates.

Bill repeated his comments that our group would not need to be an affiliate
to take advantage of some of ISACís services. He suggested that we set up a
separate Technology track at their 2002 conferences, possibly both the January
meeting for "newly elected" county officials and the March
conference. He thought a 1-day track specific to IS/GIS would have several
benefits; helping us to identify potential members, consolidating the groups
efforts on education and training, developing structure for the organization,
helping us to formalize the process, subtly convincing the other affiliates
that there is a need for a Technology Affiliate. ISAC can provide us some of
the same benefits as the existing affiliates such as coordinating the two
conferences, sending out newsletters, dealing with conference registration
fees (currently $65 per registrant). Dave mentioned that ISACís new
facilities on SW 7th will be available to not only current ISAC
affiliates but any county group that would want to use the new conference
rooms for meetings.

Dave observed that there are positive reasons for establishing a new
affiliate. He thought bringing the technology side of county government into
the ISAC group would be beneficial for all the affiliates. In particular the
Recorders, who tend to be less technology oriented, but are trying to deal
with the e-commerce issue. He saw our group as a great resource for the ISAC
lobbying efforts as a pool of knowledge on the impact of new legislation on
county operations.

Dave pointed out two obstacles that our group needs to overcome in order to
get approved as an affiliate: first, the problem with the nebulous definition
of a technology affiliate. Are we programmers,

cartographers, GIS specialists, or are we a combination of auditor/network
specialist, assessor/ mapping specialist, planner/GIS coordinator? The second
obstacle is the resistance to change by other affiliates. There might be
concern over spreading the ISAC staff and resources too thin and diluting
their focus.

Wayne asked about the possibility of adding a session to the schedule for
the November ISAC conference. Bill said he wanted to visit with Jerri Noboa,
the ISAC meeting administrator, about adding anything to the schedule before
he could say one way or the other. The general discussion around the table was
that November might be too soon to put together a separate track. Everyone
agreed that we want to put together a quality session rather than just
throwing something together. We left it that Bill will check with Jerri on
scheduling and Wanye will check back with Bill.

Bill offered to let our group continue using the conference room to finish
our groupís discussion. Everyone agreed that we want to continue with our
efforts to establish an ISAC Technology Affiliate. Bob suggested that we could
use the GMIS bylaws as a model for our bylaws. We also discussed getting
copies of other affiliates bylaws, especially the Supervisors. Micah offered
to type up the new bylaws. Scott offered to provide a list-server for the
group for posting e-mail. Subjects for the August 14th meeting
should include; bylaws, whether to incorporate or not, fees/dues, and updating
e-mail lists.